"Campaign finance authority Herbert Alexander estimated that $540 million was spent during the 1976 period on all elections in the United States. By 2000, that figure had risen to over $4 billion. To run for this job in the House in 1976 cost on average $87,000. Today, the average Member has to spend nearly $1 million, and some $2 million, 10 times what was spent just 30 years ago, and the population hasn't gone up by 10 times."This is insane, how can the normal American ever hope to run for office unless they are backed by a political party with an established contribution program or aligning with private interest groups.
Why were political groups started? To band together like minded individuals in support of specific legislative goals. But today it seems that if you want to get elected you have no choice but to join one of the two establishments. Is the answer to follow the old Republican ideal of the creme rising to the top, so that only the rich and successful can lead the nation? Bluntly, no.
The remedy in my mind is to offer a means for the average John or Jane to enter the race. Am I in favor of public funding? Again no. Maybe by prohibiting mass advertising. What a shocking idea, why allow paid commercials by candidates or tv commercials? Now I'm not attacking the Sierra club or other philanthropic organizations from running ads supporting one candidate or another. Rather to bar the direct advertising by political parties or candidates themselves.
Got a better idea? let me know, write a response on how we can help more individuals enter the political arena.
A friend emailed me a comment that by disallowing commercials by politicians that I would be attempting to limit free speech. I have no good argument against this statement. He is right. It is a stifling of opinions. My intent behind this post was to draw attention that unfortunately the general rule is that the best funded candidate gets the widest audience, and usually the most support. Any other ideas on how to remedy this?
ReplyDelete